Does India's Employment Guarantee Scheme Quarantee Employment?
No hay miniatura disponible
Fecha
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
World Bank, Washington, DC
Resumen
Descripción
In 2005 India introduced an ambitious
national anti-poverty program, now called the Mahatma Gandhi
National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The program
offers up to 100 days of unskilled manual labor per year on
public works projects for any rural household member who
wants such work at the stipulated minimum wage rate. The aim
is to dramatically reduce poverty by providing extra
earnings for poor families, as well as empowerment and
insurance. If the program worked in practice the way it is
designed, then anyone who wanted work on the scheme would
get it. However, analysis of data from India's National
Sample Survey for 2009/10 reveals considerable un-met demand
for work in all states. The authors confirm expectations
that poorer families tend to have more demand for work on
the scheme, and that (despite the un-met demand) the
self-targeting mechanism allows it to reach relatively poor
families and backward castes. The extent of the un-met
demand is greater in the poorest states -- ironically where
the scheme is needed most. Labor-market responses to the
scheme are likely to be weak. The scheme is attracting poor
women into the workforce, although the local-level rationing
processes favor men.
Palabras clave
AGGREGATE DEMAND, AGRICULTURAL LABORERS, ANTI-POVERTY, ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAM, ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAM, AVERAGE WAGE, AVERAGE WAGES, BARGAINING POWER, CASH TRANSFERS, CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURES, CONSUMPTION QUINTILES, EGS, EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE, EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEMES, EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS, FLEXIBILITY, FORCED LABOR, HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION, HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, IMPACT ON POVERTY, INCIDENCE OF POVERTY, INCOME, INEQUALITY, INSURANCE, JOBS, LABOR ECONOMICS, LABOR FORCE, LABORERS, LABOUR, LANDHOLDINGS, MANPOWER, MANUAL LABOR, MARKET WAGES, MINIMUM WAGE, MINIMUM WAGES, NATIONAL POVERTY, OCCUPATION, PARTICIPATION RATES, PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION, POLITICAL ECONOMY, POOR, POOR AREAS, POOR FAMILIES, POOR HOUSEHOLDS, POOR INDIVIDUALS, POOR PEOPLE, POOR WOMEN, POORER FAMILIES, POORER HOUSEHOLDS, POVERTY ALLEVIATION, POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROGRAMS, POVERTY IMPACTS, POVERTY LINE, POVERTY LINES, POVERTY PROGRAMS, POVERTY RATE, POVERTY RATES, POVERTY STATUS, PROGRAM COSTS, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, PUBLIC SPENDING, PUBLIC WORKS, PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAMS, PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS, RIGHT TO WORK, RURAL, RURAL AREAS, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, RURAL EMPLOYMENT, RURAL HEADCOUNT, RURAL HEADCOUNT INDEX, RURAL HOUSEHOLD, RURAL HOUSEHOLDS, RURAL LABOR, RURAL LABOR MARKET, RURAL LABOR MARKETS, RURAL POOR, RURAL POPULATION, RURAL POVERTY, RURAL PUBLIC, SCHOOLING, SEASONAL LABOR, SOCIAL PROTECTION, SUBSTITUTION EFFECT, TARGETING, TRANSFER BENEFITS, UNEMPLOYMENT, UNSKILLED LABOR, WAGE EFFECT, WAGE INCREASE, WAGE RATE, WAGE RATES, WORKER, WORKERS